Tonja Ames v. King County
846 F.3d 340
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- On Feb. 6, 2013, Tonja Ames called 911 for her son Colin Briganti, who appeared unconscious and possibly overdosed; EMS and Deputy Heather Volpe arrived within minutes.
- Ames refused to let police enter the apartment with EMS; after EMS briefly entered then withdrew, Ames and neighbors carried Briganti to her pickup to drive him to the hospital.
- Deputy Volpe blocked the truck, ordered Ames not to leave so EMS could treat Briganti, and—after Ames attempted to drive and resisted—pulled her from the cab, used a hair hold, pinned her with a knee, and (per Ames) slammed her head into the ground multiple times before handcuffing her.
- Backup deputies (Sawtelle and Christian) arrived shortly after; Sawtelle searched the truck (including the glove compartment) for medications and a suicide note and found a gun and prescription bottles.
- Ames sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force, unlawful search, and related claims. The district court denied qualified immunity on the excessive force and unlawful search claims; deputies appealed. The Ninth Circuit reversed and granted qualified immunity on both claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force: Was Volpe's takedown and force an unreasonable Fourth Amendment seizure? | Ames: Volpe used excessive, unnecessary force (head slams, knee) while arresting her for obstruction. | Volpe: Acted reasonably in community-caretaking role to prevent escape with an overdose victim and to allow EMS to render life-saving care. | Volpe entitled to qualified immunity; force was objectively reasonable given the life‑threatening emergency and Ames’s resistance. |
| Unlawful search: Was the warrantless search of Ames’s truck unreasonable? | Ames: Warrantless search violated Fourth Amendment; scope may have been improper. | Deputies: Emergency doctrine permitted a search to discover what drugs/medications caused the overdose; glove compartment search was reasonably tailored. | Deputies Sawtelle and Christian entitled to qualified immunity; search fell within emergency exception and scope was reasonable. |
| Qualified immunity standard: Were rights clearly established? | Ames: The force and search violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. | Deputies: Even if mistaken, actions were reasonable and not a violation of clearly established law given emergency context. | Court: Even if constitutional error were arguable, deputies are protected because the law was not clearly established for these specific facts. |
| Community-caretaking / emergency doctrine applicability | Ames: Actions were pretext for law enforcement, not genuine caretaking/emergency response. | Deputies: They were responding to a suicide/overdose emergency and securing scene to protect victim and responders. | Court: Community-caretaking/emergency doctrines applied; deputies’ actions aimed at resolving life‑threatening emergency. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Fourth Amendment use-of-force reasonableness framework)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (view facts from perspective of reasonable officer on scene)
- Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (community caretaking doctrine)
- United States v. Stafford, 416 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir.) (emergency doctrine and community-caretaking searches)
- United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947 (9th Cir.) (two-part test for emergency exception to warrant requirement)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (qualified immunity: officials entitled to breathing room for reasonable but mistaken judgments)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clearly established law standard)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (importance of factual specificity in Fourth Amendment qualified immunity analysis)